- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 30586 OF 2015 (S-PRO) BETWEEN: SMT. VASUNDARA DEVI C., W/O B.A. SATHISH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, 2ND MAIN, 5TH CROSS, NANJAMBA AGRAHARA CHAMRAJPET, BENGALURU-560018. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAMOD N. KATHAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RACHANA BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, P.B. NO.5074, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. SMT. MANJULA B.S., W/O ASHOKA CHINNAPPA SHETTY, AGED: MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.264, 7TH CROSS, TALAKAVERY LAYOUT, AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560092. 3. SRI. SHIVARAMACHARI, S/O GOPANNA ACHARY, AGED: MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.157, VIDYARANYANAGAR, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 4. SRI. PUTTA OBALAREDDY, S/O CHIKKOBA REDDY, AGED: MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.62, SATHYA SAI NILAYA, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, BHADRAPPA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTIHALLI, BENGALURU-560094. 5. SMT. VIMALAKSHI A.S., D/O P. SHIVANNA, AGED: MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.45, 4TH MAIN, NEHARU NAGARA, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020. 6. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA C., W/O LATE DOODEGOWDA, AGED: MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.18/1, 9TH MAIN , 9TH CROSS, AGHRAHARA, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. YOGESH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NOS.4, 5 AND 6; VIDE ORDER DATED 04.11.2016, NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.3 THROUGH RESPONDENT NO.1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE ABOVE CASE AND QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.KLAS/AA1/35/FPP/2007 DATED 13.09.2010 (ANNEXURE-F) PROMOTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE POST OF SENIOR ASSISTANT WITH EFFECT FROM 13.9.2010 AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 17.04.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CAV ORDER The petitioner has challenged the promotion accorded to respondent No.2 vide order bearing No.KLAS/Aa1/35/FPP/2007 dated 13.09.2010 to the post of Senior Assistant. She has also challenged the order bearing No.KLAS/Aa1/126/FPP/2010 dated 28.01.2011. She has sought for a writ or an order or a direction to respondent No.1 to consider her case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 13.09.2010 against the post at 27th point in the roster and to extend her all consequential benefits. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the seniority lists for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 in respect of the Senior Assistants in so far as it relates to placing the petitioner below the respondent No.2 to 6. Similarly, she has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the seniority list of Senior Assistants for the years 2013 to 2015 in so far as it relates to placing the petitioner below respondents No.3 to 6. She has sought for a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 declaration that she is entitled for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 13.09.2010 and consequently, has sought for a direction to the respondent to prepare and publish the seniority list of Senior Assistants for the years 2010 to 2015 and assign appropriate place to her by treating her as having been promoted to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 13.09.2010. She has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Notification bearing No.KLAS/Aa- 1/33/Sa.Ni.Sha.Mum./2012, dated 03.02.2014 promoting respondent No.4 to the post of Section Officer and consequently, has sought for a direction to the respondents to consider her case for promotion to the post of Section Officer with effect from 03.02.2014 when the respondent No.4 was promoted. 2. (i) The petitioner was appointed as a Stenographer in accordance with Rule 5(2) of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1998 (for short, ‘the KLAS Rules’). Though she reported to duty on 18.02.2002 and completed the period of probation, respondent did not declare the satisfactory completion of period of probation. This prompted the petitioner to submit a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 representation requesting the respondent to declare that she had satisfactorily completed the period of probation. However, the Commissioner for Social Welfare, Government of Karnataka, by order dated 16.09.2005 invalidated the appointment to various posts including the appointment of the petitioner, acting in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Rule 10(1) and 10(3) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointment etc.) (Amendment) Rules, 2000 (for short, ‘the 2000 Rules’) on the ground that the appointment to the post of Stenographer was made in contravention of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled Vacancies Reserved for the Persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001 (for short, ‘the Special Recruitment Rules’). (ii) The petitioner and others challenged the aforesaid order before this Court in W.P. No.23891/2005. In the meanwhile, the respondent had prepared, published and circulated the seniority list in the cadre of Stenographers for the years 2003 to 2009 and assigned appropriate place to the petitioner. It also issued an order dated 13.09.2010 promoting - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 three Assistants and one Stenographer to the post of Senior Assistant in terms of Rule 6(ii) of Karnataka Legislative Assembly (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2003 (for short, ‘the 2003 Rules’) read with Rule 19(3)(a) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules 1977 (for short, 'the General Recruitment Rules, 1977'). One of the employees who was so promoted was respondent No.2, a Stenographer and she belonged to General Merit category. The petitioner contends that the 2003 Rules, as amended in the year 2009, prescribed that the post of Senior Assistant should be filled by promotion from amongst the cadre of Assistant in the ratio of 6:3 i.e., every 3rd, 6th and 9th vacancy being filled by promotion of a Stenographer. As per the said Rules, the post of Senior Assistant was reserved and was to be filled up by a person belonging to scheduled caste inasmuch as in the roster point, the said vacancy was shown as 27th. The petitioner, therefore, contends that respondent No.2 could not have been promoted to the said post as she belonged to General Merit category. However, by that date, the petitioner was not considered for promotion since her appointment was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 invalidated in terms of the order dated 16.09.2005 which was questioned in W.P. No.23891/2005. (iii) The petitioner contends that the respondent thereafter, promoted respondent No.4 and a Stenographer viz., respondent No.3 to the posts of Senior Assistants by order dated 28.01.2011 in terms of Rule 6(ii) of 2003 Rules read with Rule 19(3)(a) of the General Recruitment Rules, 1977. Even at that stage also, the case of the petitioner was not considered as she had challenged the invalidation of her appointment vide order dated 16.09.2005 before this Court in W.P. No.23891/2005. Later, the respondent No.1, by an order dated 03.06.2011, filled up two posts of Senior Assistants which had fallen vacant and consequently, published the seniority list of Assistants and Stenographers for the years 2010 and 2011 where the petitioner was shown at Sl.Nos.24 and 23 respectively in the cadre of Stenographers. (iv) The petitioner contends that this Court in terms of the order dated 12.07.2011, allowed W.P. No.23891/2005 and quashed the order dated 16.09.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Social Welfare. The petitioner contends that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 based on the above order, the respondent No.1 declared the satisfactory completion of probation of the petitioner vide order dated 14.10.2011. (v) She contends that in view of the above order, the respondent No.1 promoted the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant vide order dated 02.11.2011 in terms of Rule 6(ii) of the 2003 Rules read with Rule 19(3)(a) of the General Recruitment Rules, 1977. It was made clear in this order that separate order would be issued with regard to her pay, inter se seniority and the date of eligibility after obtaining the opinion of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. She further contends that when she was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant, it was against the post reserved for scheduled caste i.e. 27th point in the roster. After the respondent No.1 obtained opinion from the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, it issued an order dated 01.04.2014 re-determining the date of eligibility of the petitioner and fixing it at 13.09.2010 and considering her promotion in the cadre of Senior Assistant as against 27th point in the roster reserved for scheduled caste. Likewise, the respondent No.1 issued an order dated 01.04.2014 re-determining the date of eligibility of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 respondents No.2 and 3 as 13.09.2010 and the roster point of the vacancies to which they were promoted was shown as 28th and 29th vacancies respectively. The petitioner, therefore, contends that she has to be considered eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as against 27th vacancy with effect from 13.09.2010 along with respondent Nos.2 and 3. The respondent, thereafter, prepared, published and circulated a Seniority List of Senior Assistants as on 01.01.2012 and 01.01.2013. In the seniority list dated 01.01.2012, respondent No.2 was shown at Sl.No.23, respondent No.3 at Sl.No.26 and the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.29 and the date of their promotion was shown as 13.09.2010, 28.01.2011 and 02.11.2011 respectively. In the seniority list dated, 01.01.2013, the respondent No.2 was shown at Sl.No.4, respondent No.3 at Sl.No.7 and the petitioner at Sl. No.10 and their respective dates of entry into service was shown as 13.09.2010, 28.01.2011 and 02.11.2011. In both the seniority lists, it was mentioned that the dates of promotion and seniority are subject to review by the respondent No.1. (vi) The respondent No.1 then issued a Notification dated 05.07.2013 and promoted respondent No.2 and three - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 other Senior Assistants to the posts of Section Officers in terms of Rule 6(ii) of the 2003 Rules read with Rule 19(3)(a) of the General Recruitment Rules, 1977. Thereafter, the respondent prepared, published and circulated the seniority list of all cadres on 01.01.2014. In the said list, relating to Senior Assistants, the petitioner was shown at Sl. No.6, while respondent No.3 was shown at Sl.No.3 and the name of respondent No.2 was not shown since she was promoted to the post of Section Officer vide order dated 05.07.2013. (vii) She contends that respondent No.3 and two other Senior Assistants were promoted as Assistant Directors vide order dated 21.04.2014, and respondent No.4 and another person were appointed to the post of Section Officers vide Notification dated 03.02.2014. (viii) The petitioner contends that all these promotions were illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unsustainable and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. She contends that respondents No.2 and 3 could not have been considered for promotion to the post of Section Officer, ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner who, by virtue of her seniority - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 in the cadre of Senior Assistant, deserves to be considered for promotion. She claims that her right for consideration to be promoted was based on the date of eligibility for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant which was fixed on 13.09.2010 and as a consequence, she was deemed to be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 13.09.2010. (ix) The petitioner contends that in all the seniority lists issued for the years 2011 to 2014, the seniority assigned to respondents No.2 and 3 and the date of their eligibility for promotion were subject to review. (x) She contends that the respondent thereafter prepared, published and circulated a draft seniority list in the cadre of Senior Assistant as on 01.01.2015 wherein she was placed at Sl.No.3, below Smt. A.S.Vimalakshi and Smt. Lakshmamma C., who are respondents No.5 and 6 respectively. (xi) The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, filed objections to the draft seniority list. However, the respondent published the final seniority list as on 01.01.2015 placing the petitioner at Sl.No.3 below the respondents No.5 and 6. She contends that if only, the seniority of the petitioner - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 was appropriately fixed in the years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2015, she would be placed between Sl.Nos.32 and 33 above respondent No.2 in the year 2010-11; Sl.Nos.22 and 33 above respondent No.2 in the year 2012; and as per the seniority list dated 01.01.2013, above respondent No.2 and between respondents No.3 and 4. Likewise, as per seniority list dated 01.01.2014, the petitioner was to be shown at place between respondents No.2 and 3 and below Mr. J.Sanat Kumar and Sri. Putta Obulareddy, respondent No.4. The petitioner therefore, represented before the respondent No.1 to consider her case for promotion consequent upon re-determination of her eligibility for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and also further promotion to the post of Section Officer. 3. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent No.1 in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and extending the consequential benefits and in not considering her case for promotion to the post of Section Officer, she is before this Court. 4. i) Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submitted that consequent upon the declaration of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 satisfactory completion of probation and after the petitioner had put in the qualifying service for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant, when the vacancy for the post of Senior Assistant which was specifically reserved for scheduled caste arose, respondent No.2 could not have been promoted. He contends that the order dated 16.09.2005 invalidating the appointment of the petitioner was stayed by this Court and therefore, for all practical purposes, the date of entry of the petitioner into service has to be considered for the promotion to the next higher post. He contends that the 27th vacancy in the roster point was reserved for scheduled caste which could not have been filled up by the respondent No.2 who belongs to General Category. He therefore, contends that in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.23891/2005, the probationary period was declared and hence, he contends that the petitioner ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant against 27th roster point. He invites the attention of this Court to the seniority list prepared and published in the years 2010 and 2011 and submitted that it was specifically mentioned that the dates of eligibility would be reviewed by the respondent. He contends that when the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 respondent passed an order on 01.04.2014 re-determining the eligibility of the petitioner as 13.09.2010 and considering her promotion in the cadre of Senior Assistant as against 27th roster point, she could not have been placed below respondent No.2 or any other respondents. He, therefore, contends that the respondent is bound to undo the promotion granted to respondent No.2 and place the petitioner above respondent No.2 in all seniority lists and grant consequential benefits. ii) He also contends that upon grant of such promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 13.09.2010, the petitioner is entitled for the consequential promotion in view of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, he relied upon Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2017 (for short, ‘the 2017 Act’), which came into effect from 17.06.1995. He, therefore, contends that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted to the post of Section Officer by virtue of accelerated promotion to the post of Senior Assistant and consequential seniority above respondents No.2 to 6 in the cadre of Senior Assistants and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 Section Officers and for all future promotions. He contends that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.K.Pavitra Vs. Union of India [(2019) 16 SCC 129] (B.K. Pavitra II) upheld the validity of 2017 Act and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the consequential seniority. He contends that in Jarnail Singh and others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others [(2022) 10 SCC 595] [Jarnail Singh II], the validity of the 2017 Act did not fall for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, the 2017 Act holds the field and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit flowing therefrom. 5. i) The petition is opposed by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 admitted the date of appointment of the petitioner as well as the order dated 16.09.2005 invalidating the appointment of the petitioner and also admitted that the same was questioned before this Court in W.P. No.23891/2005. It also admitted that the post of Senior Assistant had to be filled up by way of promotion from the cadre of Assistants and Stenographers in the ratio of 6:3, and that the 27th vacancy in the roster was meant for a person belonging to scheduled caste. It admitted that the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 Senior Assistant against the 27th roster point as her appointment was invalidated and the same was still under consideration in W.P. No.23891/2005. It admitted that, in terms of the Official Memorandum dated 13.09.2010, respondent No.2 was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant against the 27th roster point. It therefore, contended that its action is in accordance with the rules governing its roster policy. It further claimed that, in terms of an Official Memorandum dated 28.01.2011, it promoted Sri. Shivaramachari–respondent No.3, a Stenographer, and Sri. Putta Obalareddy, an Assistant, to the posts of Senior Assistants. Similarly, respondents No.5 and 6 were promoted to the posts of Senior Assistants vide Official Memorandum dated 03.06.2011. It specifically contended that the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the posts of Senior Assistant since the appointment of the petitioner was invalidated by the Social Welfare Department and the same was pending before this Court. It admitted that W.P. No.23891/2005 was allowed and the order dated 16.09.2005 issued by the Social Welfare Department was quashed. It stated that, in order to comply the order passed in W.P. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 No.23891/2005, it issued an order dated 14.10.2011 regularizing the services of the petitioner and declaring her satisfactory completion of period of probation. ii) It also admitted that it had issued seniority list for the years 2010 and 2011 in respect of all Officers and officials of respondent No.1 and as per the said seniority lists, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.24 and Sl. No.23 respectively in the cadre of Stenographer. It admitted that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant vide Official Memorandum dated 02.11.2011. It also stated that as per the official memorandum, special orders regarding seniority, date of eligibility and pay of the petitioner in the promoted post (Senior Assistant) had to be issued separately in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. Later, it issued an order dated 01.04.2014 whereby the seniority, the date of eligibility and pay of the petitioner in the promoted post (Senior Assistant) was reviewed. As per the said order, in the light of the opinion given by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms promotions of respondents No.2, respondent No.3 and of the petitioner were reviewed and the date of eligibility of the petitioner to the post - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 of Senior Assistant was fixed with effect from 13.09.2010, the date on which respondent No.2 was promoted and her pay in the said post of Senior Assistant was notionally fixed with effect from 13.09.2010 and the monetary benefits was sanctioned from 02.11.2011, the date on which the petitioner was actually promoted to the post of Senior Assistant. It is contended that under Section 4 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973, there is no provision for retrospective promotion. It also contended that the promotion of the petitioner was considered against 27th roster point which was meant for scheduled caste. iii) It contended that by virtue of promotion of the petitioner, respondents No.2 and 3, the eligibility date of the three officials was fixed as 13.09.2010 and the petitioner was shown against 27th vacancy which was meant for scheduled caste. It also contended that respondent No.1 issued the seniority list of Officers and Officials for the year 2012 and 2013 and, as per the seniority list as on 01.01.2012, respondents No.2 and 3 were shown at Sl.No.23 and 26 respectively and the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.29. The dates of promotion to the said post were shown as 13.09.2010, - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 28.01.2011 and 02.11.2011 respectively. As per the seniority list as on 01.01.2013, respondent No.2 was shown at Sl.No.4, respondent No.3 at Sl.No.7 and the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.10. It contended that these seniority lists were subject to review. Later, the date of promotion to the posts of Senior Assistants was reviewed in terms of an order dated 01.04.2014 as per which, the date of eligibility of promotion of the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 was fixed at 13.09.2010. It contended that respondents No.2 and 3 are seniors to the petitioner in the cadre of Stenographer and as such, their inter se seniority in the cadre of Senior Assistant was fixed keeping in view, their inter se seniority in the cadre of Stenographer in terms of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Government Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules, 1957'). Further, it is also contended that the roster point is meant for providing reservation to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes and not for determining the seniority. As per the roster norms, the inter se seniority of the candidates promoted has to be determined by taking into consideration their inter se seniority in the feeder cadre. The respondent No.1 has relied upon its order bearing - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 No.DPAR 10 SBC 97, dated 24.06.1997 which contains roster policy. iv) It contended that as per the Notification dated 05.07.2013, Sri Rangappa, Sri Subramanya S.Kumata, Sri B.S. Manjula and Sri K.T.Srinivas were promoted to the posts of Section Officers. The respondent issued the seniority list of the officers and officials as on 01.01.2014 as per which, the petitioner was shown at Sl.No.6 and respondent No.3 at Sl.No.3 in the cadre of Senior Assistant. It further submitted that the name of respondent No.2 was not included in the cadre of Senior Assistant, as a matter of fact, since she was promoted to the post of Section Officer. Thereafter, respondent No.3-Sri Shivaramachari, Smt. S.Shobhavathi and Smt. R.Hemalatha were promoted to the post of Assistant Director, which is equivalent to the post of Section Officer. It is contended that, as per the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service), Rules, 2012 for promotion to the post of Assistant Director one should be a holder of Degree in Law from a recognized University and must have put in not less than three years of service in the cadre of Senior Assistant/Research Assistant. The petitioner is not a - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 holder of degree in Law of recognized University. Therefore, she is not eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Director. In so far as respondent No.4-Sri Putta Obalareddy and Sri J.Sanath Kumar are concerned, it is contended that they were also promoted to the posts of Section Officers vide Notification dated 03.02.2014. It is contended that the posts of Assistant and Stenographers are of similar scale and grade and the post of Senior Assistant had to be filled up by promotion from the cadre of Assistant and Stenographer in the ratio of 6:3. It is contended that Sri J.Sanath Kumar was promoted to the post of Assistant on 04.10.1997, while respondent No.4 was promoted on 16.09.1998. However, the petitioner had joined the service on 18.12.2002. Therefore, it is contended that Sri J.Sanath Kumar and Sri Putta Obalareddy were promoted to the post of Senior Assistant prior to the review of promotion of the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3 i.e., on 01.04.2014. Thus, it is contended that the seniority of Sri J.Sanath Kumar and Sri Putta Obalareddy, and of the petitioner has to be determined in the cadre of Senior Assistant by taking into consideration the date of appointment in the feeder cadre as per Seniority Rules. Therefore, it is contended that Sri. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 J.Sanath Kumar and Sri. Putta Obalareddy are placed above the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Assistant. Therefore, it contended that the claim of the petitioner that her case for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant ought to have been considered as and when the vacancy arose since she satisfied the condition for promotion, is not tenable. v) In so far as respondents No.5 and 6 are concerned, it contended that as per seniority list issued on 01.01.2015, the petitioner was placed at Sl.No.3, while respondents No.5 and 6 were placed at Sl. No.1 and Sl. No.2 respectively. The petitioner submitted a representation on 07.02.2015 which was examined in the light of Rule 4 of the Rules, 1957. It contended that respondents No.5 and 6 were promoted to the posts of Senior Assistants on 03.06.2011 which was much earlier than the review of the eligibility of the petitioner. It also contended that respondents No.5 and 6 were promoted to the post of Assistants on 15.09.1998 and 18.05.2001 respectively and therefore, the seniority of respondents No.5 and 6 in the higher cadre of Senior Assistant has to be fixed above the petitioner who entered service on 18.12.2002. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 vi) It is further contended that in view of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Act, 1973, the actual date of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant has to be considered as 02.11.2011 and not 13.09.2010 and hence, it is contended that respondents No.5 and 6 were placed above the petitioner in the seniority list issued on 01.01.2015. Thus, it is contended that the action of respondent No.1 is in conformity with the Rules and the petitioner cannot claim seniority over respondents No.5 and 6 in the cadre of Senior Assistants. vii) As far as the 27th roster point, which is reserved for schedule caste, it contended that as per the roster norms, when eligible candidates belonging to scheduled castes/scheduled tribes are not available in the feeder cadre for any reason, the candidates belonging to general category can be considered against the roster point reserved for SC/ST and that point could be carried forward as backlog vacancy and can be made good in future. It is contended that as the appointment of the petitioner was invalidated, there was no candidate in the cadre of Stenographer to be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant against 27th roster point reserved for - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 scheduled caste and therefore, respondent No.2 belonging to general merit was considered. Therefore, it is contended that the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Section Officer during 2013 itself is untenable and contrary to the Rules governing promotion and seniority etc. and accordingly, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Section Officer vide order dated 03.08.2015 as per her eligibility. 6. With the above contentions, respondent No.1 contended that the order granting promotion to the petitioner and placing the petitioner below the private respondents was just and proper. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate reiterated the aforesaid and contended that the seniority of the respondent No.2 is maintained over and above the petitioner which is to give effect to Rule 4 of the Rules, 1957. He contends that there is no provision for granting retrospective promotion to the petitioner and hence the promotion to the petitioner was deemed to be with effect from 02.11.2011 though the date of eligibility was determined as 13.09.2010 when respondent No.2 was promoted to the post of Senior - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 Assistant. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. 9. The appointment of the petitioner as a Stenographer on 13.12.2002 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner was invalidated by the Commissioner for Social Welfare by order dated 16.09.2005. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and similarly placed persons filed W.P. No.23891/2005. During the pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.1 issued an order dated 13.09.2010 promoting respondent No.2 herein to the post of Senior Assistant against the 27th roster point meant for scheduled caste. It is not in dispute that the 2003 Rules mandated that the post of Senior Assistant should be filled by promotion from the cadre of Assistant/Stenographer in the ratio of 6:3. The respondent No.1, in its statement of objections, has admitted that the promotion of respondent No.2 to the post of Senior Assistant was against the 27th roster - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 point which was reserved for scheduled caste. The statement of objections also discloses that the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion though she was the only candidate who belonged to scheduled caste since W.P. No.23891/2005 filed by her was pending consideration before this Court. Thereafter, respondent No.1 promoted respondent No.3 to the post of Senior Assistant vide order dated 28.01.2011 which was followed by filling up of two posts of Senior Assistants from the cadre of Assistants, namely, respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed in terms of the order dated 12.07.2011 in terms of which, the appointment of the petitioner was ordered to be regularized. Following this, respondent No.1 issued an order dated 14.10.2011 regularizing the appointment of the petitioner. She was later promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in terms of an order dated 02.11.2011. This order clearly specified that, “¸ÀzÀj £ËPÀgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ eÉåõÀ×vÉ, ªÉÃvÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CºÀðvÁ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ ¹§âA¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DqÀ½vÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ E¯ÁSÉ (¸ÉêÁ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁªÀ½UÀ¼ÀÄ), EªÀjAzÀ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ D ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.” - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 10. Following this, respondent No.1 in terms of an order dated 01.04.2014 determined the date of eligibility of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant as 13.09.2010 against the 27th roster point reserved for scheduled caste. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for all benefits such as promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 13.09.2010 and notional determination of benefits such as pay and allowances applicable to the said post with effect from 13.09.2010. 11. In so far as the seniority of the petitioner in the list of officers of respondent No.1 in the cadre of Senior Assistant as on 01.01.2012, the petitioner was shown below respondent No.2 and it was specifically mentioned against their names as follows: PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À ¸À¨sÉ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ºÁUÀÆ £ËPÀgÀgÀ eÉåõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖ (¢£ÁAPÀ: 01-01-2012gÀAzÀÄ EzÀÝ jÃvÁå) PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀA SÉå ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ FV£À GzÉÆåÃUÀ ªÀÈAzÀPÉÌ £ÉêÀÄPÀªÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¥ÀzÀ£ÁªÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ «zÁåºÀðvÉ µÀgÁ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ 23 ©.J¸ï.ªÀÄAdÄ ¼À 24.01.1963 08.10.1990 13.09.2010 ©.J. J¯ï.J¯ï. ©. »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ ºÁUÀÆ eÉåõÀ×vÉAiÀÄÄ - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 ¥ÀÄ£ÀgÁªÀ¯ÉÆÃPÀ£ÀzÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 29 ªÀ¸ÀÄAzÀgÀ zÉë.¹ 22.07.1977 18.12.2002 02.11.2011 ©.PÁA., r¥ÉÆèêÀiÁ E£ï PÀªÀĶðAiÀÄ ¯ï ¥ÁæQÖ¸ï »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ ºÁUÀÆ eÉåõÀ×vÉAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀgÁªÀ¯ÉÆÃPÀ£ÀzÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. Likewise, the seniority list of officers of respondent No.1 as on 01.01.2013 was published where the petitioner was placed below respondent No.2 and was subjected to the following: PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À ¸À¨sÉ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄzÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ºÁUÀÆ £ËPÀgÀgÀ eÉåõÀ×vÁ ¥ÀnÖ (¢£ÁAPÀ: 01-01-2013gÀAzÀÄ EzÀÝ jÃvÁå) PÀæªÀÄ ¸ÀA SÉå ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ d£Àä ¢£ÁAPÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ FV£À GzÉÆåÃUÀ ªÀÈAzÀPÉÌ £ÉêÀÄPÀªÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ ¥ÀzÀ£ÁªÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ «zÁåºÀðvÉ µÀgÁ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ/¸ÀA±ÉÆÃzsÀ£Á ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ 4 ©.J¸ï. ªÀÄAdļÀ 24.01.1963 08.10.1990 13.09.2010 ©.J. J¯ï.J¯ï.©. »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ ºÁUÀÆ eÉåõÀ×vÉAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀgÁªÀ¯ÉÆÃPÀ£ÀzÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 10 ªÀ¸ÀÄAzÀgÀ zÉë.¹ 22.07.1977 18.12.2002 02.11.2011 ©.PÁA., r¥ÉÆèêÀiÁ E£ï PÀªÀĶðAiÀÄ¯ï ¥ÁæQÖ¸ï »jAiÀÄ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA§rÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ ºÁUÀÆ eÉåõÀ×vÉAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀgÁªÀ¯ÉÆÃPÀ£ÀzÀ µÀgÀwÛUÉ M¼À¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. Therefore, the question that arises for consideration is, whether, by promoting the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant against the 27th roster point, the petitioner was - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 entitled to consequential seniority over respondent No.2 who had entered service prior to the petitioner i.e. on 08.10.1990. 12. In order to answer the above question, it is imperative to first reflect on how the concept of consequential seniority gained legislative recognition. 13. (i) The State Government had framed the Karnataka Government Servants’ (Seniority) Rules, 1957 (for short, 'the Rules, 1957') which provided for determining seniority amongst Government servants. Rule 4 of the Rules, 1957 provided that promotions to a class of post or cadre are made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit at the same time, the relative seniority shall be determined by their (i) inter-se seniority in the lower cadre or class of post; (ii) if promotions are made from several cadres or classes of posts of the same grade, by the period of service in those grades and (iii) if their promotions are made from several cadres or classes of posts, the grades of which are not the same, by the order in which the candidates are arranged by the authority making the promotion in consultation with Public Service Commission where such consultation is necessary taking into consideration - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 the order in which promotions are to be made from those several cadres or classes of post. (ii) For the first time, the State Government introduced reservation for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in specific categories of promotional posts vide Government Order dated 27.04.1978 providing 15% reservation for Scheduled Castes and 3% for Scheduled Tribes in all cadres up to and inclusive of the lowest category of Class I posts. On 01.06.1978, the State Government issued an Official Memorandum providing guidelines and clarifications for implementing the Government Order dated 27.04.1978. This Office Memorandum provided for consequential seniority to reserved category candidates. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 (3) Supp SCC 217], held that there can be no reservation in promotion. However, it saved the Government Order dated 27.04.1978 and the Official Memorandum dated 01.06.1978 for a period of five years from 16.11.1992 and also saved the promotions already made. The Parliament thereafter enacted the Seventy- seventh amendment to the Constitution of India and inserted - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 clause (4A) to Article 16 on 17.06.1995 which enabled reservations to be made in promotions in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As a result, the Government order dated 27.04.1978 and the Official Memorandum dated 01.06.1978 were saved. In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745] (R.K. Sabharwal) formulated a 100-point roster so that the prescribed percentage of reservation of posts is filled up. Following this, a question arose whether a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, who is promoted earlier on the basis of reservation and on the application of roster would be entitled to seniority over a senior belonging to the general category in the feeder cadre. The Hon'ble Apex Court held in Union of India and others v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and others [(1995) 6 SCC 684] that in such an event where a senior belonging to the general category when promoted to a higher post subsequently, would regain seniority over the reserved candidate who was promoted earlier. This was a judicially evolved principle for the 'catch-up rule' which was made effective from the date of the judgment in R.K. Sabharwal (supra) i.e. 10.02.1995. Later, the Hon'ble Apex - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 Court in Ajit Singh Januja and others v. State of Punjab and others [(1996) 2 SCC 715] restated the catch-up rule and held that the inter se seniority of reserved candidates and general candidates would be continued to be governed by their inter se seniority in the lower cadre. The Hon'ble Apex Court thereafter in M.G. Badappanavar and another v. State of Karnataka and Others [(2001) 2 SCC 666] held that Article 16-4A of the Constitution did not confer seniority to roster-point promotees as there is no specific rule in the State of Karnataka permitting seniority to be counted in respect of a roster promotion. 14. The Parliament then enacted the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 with effect from 17.06.1995 and thereby inserted Article 16-4A in the Constitution of India, enabling grant of consequential seniority to candidates promoted in the reserved categories. Following this amendment, the State Government enacted the Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation (to the posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act, 2002') providing consequential seniority to roster point promotees. By - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 virtue of the Act, 2002, the concept of consequential seniority gained statutory recognition and virtually replaced the 'catch- up rule', propounded in Virpal Singh Chauhan referred supra. 15. The validity of the amendments to Article 16-4A of the Constitution fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India and Others [(2006) 8 SCC 212]. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that before granting consequential seniority, there should be a study regarding the inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in State Civil Services and the impact on the quality of service by granting consequential promotion as mandated under Article 335 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the validity of the Constitutional amendments to Articles 16(4-A) and 16(4-B) and held that the validity of the individual enactments by the State Government shall be gone into by the High Courts. This Court upheld the validity of the Act, 2002 in W.P. No.14655/2010 which was then questioned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India [2017(4) SCC 620] (henceforth referred to as B.K. Pavitra-I). The - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 Hon'ble Apex Court held that proper study of determining "backwardness", "inadequacy of representation", and impact on "overall efficiency" is a must for exercise of power under Article 16-4A of the Constitution of India. It held that in the absence of this study, it is the catch-up rule as declared in M.G. Badappanavar's case (supra) that should apply. Consequently, it declared Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2002 as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and directed that a revision of seniority list be undertaken and completed within three months from the date of the judgment i.e. 09.02.2017 and further consequential action be taken within the next three months. The State Government then appointed the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka to conduct a study and submit a report on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State, inadequacy of their representation in the State Civil Services and the effect of reservation in promotion in State administration. The Chief Secretary after a detailed study of quantifiable data, submitted a report on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, inadequacy of their representation in the State Civil Services and the effect of - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 reservation by granting promotion on the overall efficiency in administration. The State Government then enacted the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation (to the posts in the civil services of the State) Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act, 2017') providing for consequential seniority. The Act, 2017 was challenged in B.K. Pavitra II (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the validity of the Act, 2017 and also the report submitted by the Chief Secretary, who had adopted the Group of posts as a sampling method for determining inadequacy of representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Civil Services of the State. A review petition was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court to review the judgment in B.K. Pavitra II which was dismissed. Thereafter, the correctness of the judgment in B.K. Pavitra II came up for consideration in Jarnail Singh II. The Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the judgment in B.K. Pavitra II but held that the collection of data on the basis of the Groups to apply the reservation under Article 16-4A of the Constitution of India was not valid but contrary to the decision in M. Nagaraj (supra) and Jarnail Singh and others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and others - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 [(2018) 10 SCC 396]. It held that for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data to assess representation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions, it is the cadre which is part of a group that should be the unit and therefore, the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre. A coordinate Bench of this Court in B. Gurumurthy and Others v. State of Karnataka Energy Department and Others [ILR 2022 KAR 1742] considered the above background which led to the State Government promulgating the Act, 2017 and also the effect of Jarnail Singh II and held as follows: "vi)…. The observations made in JARNAIL SINGH II (supra) though may amount to an over- ruling of the principle regarding the unit of analysis being "cadre" and not "group" is a position of law that needs to be applied prospectively and does not in any way effect the conclusive adjudication made in B.K. PAVITRA II (supra)." It further held that it is for the State to take steps so as to quell further confusion in granting consequential seniority to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 16. In view of the above and as a result of the Act, 2017 the catch-up rule has now lost relevance as it is the consequential seniority which has now been constitutionally recognized and has passed the muster of constitutionality. Section 3 of the Act, 2017 reads as follows: “3. Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the basis of Reservation.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Government Servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes promoted in accordance with the policy of reservation in promotion provided for in the Reservation Order shall be entitled to consequential seniority. Seniority shall be determined on the basis of the length of service in a cadre: Provided that the seniority inter-se of the Government Servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as well as those belonging to the unreserved category, promoted to a cadre, at the same time by a common order, shall be determined on the basis of their seniority inter-se, in the lower cadre. Provided further that where the posts in a cadre, according to the rules of recruitment applicable to them are required to be filled by promotion from two or more lower cadres,- (i) The number of vacancies available in the promotional (higher) cadre for each of the lower cadres according to the rules of recruitment applicable to it shall be calculated; and (ii) The roster shall be applied separately to the number of vacancies so calculated in respect of each of those lower cadres: - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 Provided also that the serial numbers of the roster points specified in the Reservation Order are intended only to facilitate calculation of the number of vacancies reserved for promotion at a time and such roster points are not intended to determine inter-se seniority of the Government Servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes vis-a-vis the Government Servants belonging to the unreserved category promoted at the same time and such inter-se seniority shall be determined by their seniority inter-se in the cadre from which they are promoted, as illustrated in the Schedule appended to this Act." The proviso to Section 3 of the Act, 2017 states that the roster points specified in the Reservation Order are not intended to determine inter-se seniority of the Government Servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes vis a vis the Governments Servants belonging to the unreserved category promoted at the same time and such inter se seniority shall be determined by their seniority inter se in the cadre from which they are promoted, as illustrated in the Schedule appended to this Act. 17. Section 4 of the Act, 2017 also reads as follows: “4. Protection of consequential seniority already accorded from 27th April 1978 onwards.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the consequential seniority already accorded to the Government servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 who were promoted in accordance with the policy of reservation in promotion provided for in the Reservation Order with effect from the Twenty Seventh Day of April, Nineteen Hundred and Seventy Eight shall be valid and shall be protected and shall not be disturbed." 18. Section 5 of the Act, 2017 also reads as follows: “5. Provision for review.- All promotions to the posts belonging to the State Civil Services shall be within the extent and in accordance with the provisions of the reservation orders and other rules pertaining to method of recruitment and seniority. The Appointing Authority shall revise and redraw the existing seniority lists to ensure that the promotions are made accordingly: Provided that subsequent to such a review, wherever it is found that Government Servants belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were promoted against reservation and backlog vacancies in excess or contrary to extent of reservation provided in the reservation orders shall be adjusted and fitted with reference to the roster points in accordance with the reservation orders issued from time to time by assigning appropriate dates of eligibility. In case, if persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes who have already been promoted against reservation or backlog vacancies in excess or contrary to the extent of reservation provisions cannot get adjusted and fitted against the roster - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 points they shall be continued against supernumerary posts, to be created by the concerned administrative department presuming concurrence of Finance Department, in the cadres in which they are currently working, till they get the date of eligibility for promotion in that cadre.” In view of the proviso to Section 3 of the Act, 2017 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jarnail Singh II and Section 5 of the Act, 2018, the respondent No.1 is bound to revise and re-draw the existing seniority lists to ensure that the promotions are made in accordance with the Act, 2017. In view of the above, the question whether the petitioner is entitled to consequential seniority is a matter that will have to be considered by the respondent No.1. 19. As regards the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Section Officer, respondent No.1 deserves to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Section Officer with effect from 03.02.2014 when respondent No.4 was promoted and consequently to extend all consequential benefits. - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 20. The claim of the petitioner that the appointment of respondent No.2 has to be quashed cannot be accepted as respondent No.2 was not at fault when she was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 13.09.2010. However, the date of eligibility of respondent No.2 to be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant has to be reconsidered and the same shall be given effect to notionally when the post of Senior Assistant became available to be filled up from amongst the General Merit category. Therefore, respondent No.1 is bound to review the eligibility of the petitioner for consequential seniority in view of the Act, 2017 and if she is eligible for consequential seniority in the cadre of Section Officer/Under Secretary, she shall be granted the benefit. 21. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is allowed in part. ii) Respondent No.1 is directed to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from 13.09.2010 against the 27th roster point reserved for Scheduled Caste. - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 Consequently, respondent No.1 shall consider the consequential promotion of the petitioner to the post of Section Officer and to the post of Under Secretary if she is eligible by reviewing the promotion granted to her as prescribed under Section 5 of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act, 2017. iii) In view of the promotion granted to the petitioner with effect from 13.09.2010 to the post of Senior Assistant, she shall be entitled for consequential notional fixation of pay and other benefits. iv) Respondent No.1 shall consider the case of the petitioner for consequential promotion to the higher posts, if she is eligible by applying the provisions of the Act, 2017, which shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31224 WP No. 30586 of 2015 v) The date of eligibility for promotion of respondent No.2 to the post of Senior Assistant shall be considered from the date when the roster point for General Category arose in the cadre of Senior Assistant. vi) All other reliefs that are not granted are hereby rejected. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE KMS List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1